Posted
by
msmash
on Friday July 01, 2016 @02:05PM
from the you-don't-mess-with-big-guys dept.

On Thursday, Spotify made major accusations against Apple of playing unfair to its music service. The Swedish-based music company said that Apple didn't approve a new version of Spotify's iOS app because "it didn't want competition for Apple Music." The Cupertino-based company has responded to the accusations. In a letter sent to Spotify general counsel Horacio Gutierrez on Friday, Apple general counsel Bruce Sewell rebutted the streaming music service's allegations, adding "we find it troubling that you are asking for exemptions to the rules we apply to all developers and are publicly resorting to rumors and half-truths about our service," Sewell wrote. BuzzFeed News reports:"Our guidelines apply equally to all app developers, whether they are game developers, e-book sellers, video-streaming services or digital music distributors; and regardless of whether or not they compete against Apple. We did not alter our behavior or our rules when we introduced our own music streaming service or when Spotify became a competitor," Sewell explains. "Ironically, it is now Spotify that wants things to be different by asking for preferential treatment from Apple."
And as for Spotify's suggestion that Apple is treading on dangerous, anticompetitive ground, well, Sewell doesn't seem too concerned. "There is nothing in Apple's conduct that 'amounts to a violation of applicable antitrust laws.' Far from it," Sewell, writes after wryly observing that not only has Apple's platform generated "hundreds of millions of dollars in incremental revenue to Spotify"; but that the Spotify App currently in the App Store is still in violation of Apple's guidelines. "I would be happy to facilitate an expeditious review and approval of your app as soon as you provide us with something that is compliant with the App Store's rules," he quips.Apple commentator John Gruber, writing for DaringFireball:Cry me a river. Spotify has long charged $12.99 via in-app subscriptions to get around the 30 percent "App Store tax". And Apple has now cut the long-term subscription split from 70-30 to 85-15. And Spotify is the streaming service most at war with artists over their abysmal royalty rates. Read between the lines and the real message here is that Apple Music is kicking Spotify's ass.

And to put that in perspective, as of a year ago, there were only 2 million active Facebook advertisers. I doubt more than one percent of those use iOS to create or buy ads, but even if 100% of them did, Apple still created an exception for Facebook's 2 million advertisers and refused to create one for Spotify's 20 million paying users.

Which is what is anti-competitive. That might be OK in the US because the anti-trust law is weak, but in Europe you don't need a monopoly to engage in anti-competitive behavior and get fined. The EU also has a tendency to view it from the point of view that the fine should hurt, and you can't hurt a multi-billion company with a million dollar fine so you should expect the fine to be in the billions. One of these days the EU is going to take apple to task for those store terms that don't allow competition ag

I have about half a dozen Google apps on my iPhone that compete with one or another of Apple's own offerings. In the streaming realm; on the audio side Pandora, SoundCloud, and Amazon Music are unmolested by Apple. And Netflix and Amazon Video do seem to be operational as well. Presumably, if Spotify's complaint is in any way at all valid, Apple will correct this oversight and pull these from the app store as well. Yes?

Apple benefits 0 from Spotify which is the entire point of this article. They are blocking Spotify now that they launched their own service. If Apple were to launch a service similar to Facebook you can be certain they would cripple the Facebook app.

Bullshit, Apple changed nothing, neither their behaviour, nor their rules. Now Spotify have changed their behaviour, they suddenly decided to violated the long standing rules on Apple's App Store. And not after Apple Music started, but after Apple Music came to Android. IOW they are scared as fuck.

So you know that GP would be "throwing a shitfit[sic]" if Walmart were requiring manufacturers to abide by Walmart's rules? You are aware then that Walmart has dedicated staff to assisting manufacturers in cutting costs (quality) in order to meet Walmart's purchase requirements? Does Apple dedicate resources to lowering quality standards? In what way is what Apple does even remotely like Walmart? It isn't a matter of preferring one to the other (they could both be shit or both be angels), they operate entir

You are aware then that Walmart has dedicated staff to assisting manufacturers in cutting costs (quality) in order to meet Walmart's purchase requirements?

I was working in the video game industry (probably 1998) when Walmart decreed that it will only stock video games that came in an uniformed box size. At that time, most video games came in large boxes to stand out from the competition even though it may contain only a CD and a thin manual. Those large boxes soon disappeared as Walmart was too big of a market to ignore.

If you want to play in the Apple walled garden, you have to play according to the rules. Pissing and moaning outside the walled garden doesn't get you preferential treatment.

Ahh, but Spottyfly actually managed to piss into the walled garden. Their app currently violates the rule not to have a link to "external in-app purchases". As does the new version that gets refused because of it.

If you want to sell SUBSCRIPTIONS via your App on Apple, you have to give them a cut. There are means to circumvent (having people go to your website to signup and pay) but taking payment and not giving apple their pound of flesh has always been operating procedure. I am unsure the problem here? I mean, you might not like the terms (30% is a lot) but it hasn't changed in years.

"Spotify stopped advertising the promotion. But it also turned off its App Store billing option, which has led to the current dispute."

Compare to Amazon Video. You can't buy videos or subscribe to Prime from the app, and yet it hasn't been kicked out of the store. So why is Apple threatening to do this to Spotify? I can't *possibly* be because of Apple Music, is it?

and in other news, Kentucky Fried Chicken has a monopoly on the Kentucky Fried Chicked ecosystem. BMW has a monopoly of the BMW ecosystem as well. You see the point? The monopoly has to apply to the industry, and they don't have a monopoly in the industry. They aren't even a majority.

That's the danger of tying your business closely to someone else's business. They can pull the rug out from underneath you. It's really a case of nothing gained, nothing lost however. If Apple hadn't built their business, at Ap

Also, theres no such thing as BMW branded tires. Great analogy though it really hit home.

BMW can do anything they want. They can force you to use proprietary tires and wheels on their cars. Theres no law that would prevent that. You would buy another car though right? Anyone getting and ideas on how to handle the Apl!e {} Spotify issue? Hint: its not keep buying more App!e shit.

This is where anti-trust laws kick in. The specific term in this case (BMW tires) would be Tying Products. Where the function of a product is tied to another product for which the manufacturer is the sole source provider. In the example given, if BMW were to put an artificial limitation on the tires (say an embedded RFID chip) that was required for the vehicle to function, and that no other tire manufacture were able to reproduce the RFID chip, then they would most assuredly wind up in court and likely losi

then they would most assuredly wind up in court and likely losing or settling

Sort of like how Nintendo put a special chip in their SNES cartridges making it impossible for software devs to purchase the blank carts from any other source? Oh wait. They did do that and it was perfectly legal.

What you are talking about is only an issue if a company uses it's monopoly in one industry to quell competition in another industry. If BMW was the only maker of cars, then they decided to also make tires and require all of their cars to use their BMW branded tires, yes, that'd be an issue.

If you read other articles on it you will find that Spotify tried to put a link in their app that would take you to Spotify's website to sign up for a subscription.

That is against the App store rules.

They are free to NOT use Apple to start subscriptions... but they cannot link to another mechanism to do so. The best they are allowed to do is say "You must sign up for a Spotify account before using this application".

No they are not free to not use Apple to start subscriptions. If you read the article, you'll find that Spotify's update removes that and Apple has rejected the update. Despite the fact that Netflix, Amazon Video and countless other subscription services do not offer subscriptions via Apple in their apps.

It's not that they removed it, it's that they replaced it - with a mechanism that sends you an email to sign up via the web site. Drop that, and the problem is solved.

"Spotify stopped advertising the promotion. But it also turned off its App Store billing option, which has led to the current dispute."

Compare to Amazon Video. You can't buy videos or subscribe to Prime from the app, and yet it hasn't been kicked out of the store. So why is Apple threatening to do this to Spotify? I can't *possibly* be because of Apple Music, is it?

This smells very much like an anti-trust issue.

The problem with the Spotify app, is that they want to do it easy to sign up from the web site from within the app. If they just dropped that, and just allowed you to log in if you had an existing account - or sign up via the app store if you don't have one - everything would be as it used to be, and the app would be accepted.

What Apple does not like, is that if you don't have an account you're referred to Spotify's web page to sign up and pay there.

If you want to sell SUBSCRIPTIONS via your App on Apple, you have to give them a cut. There are means to circumvent (having people go to your website to signup and pay) but taking payment and not giving apple their pound of flesh has always been operating procedure. I am unsure the problem here? I mean, you might not like the terms (30% is a lot) but it hasn't changed in years.

30% was pretty low for applications at the time the app store - if you sold it any other way (physical stores, carrier app stores etc) and you'd get far less. Subscriptions for magazines were also a bargain for the publishers - it's not like you'd get 70% from retail stores. The only problem there was Apple's privacy guidelines, meaning they didn't get the valuable subscriber information.

For outlets like spotify, this is a much bigger problem. When you pay 70% of your renenue in licensing costs, you can

I know it must be hard to believe for people like you, but there are others out there who actually use and genuinely like Apple's products, and use and like Uber's, Lyft's, and Airbnb's services, and think that the shuttle busses are a fine way to get cars off our streets during commute hours, and think that Google glass was a really cool idea that should have been taken farther (A lot farther. I wanted my goddamned Predator, or at least Terminator, vision.). That doesn't make us "shills", or even "fanboi

It really sounds like Spotify is feeling financial pressure so they are trying to negotiate better terms by claiming Apples behavior is all about pushing Spotify out of business, when the truth is Apple benefits from Spotify being successful (the more they sell the more Apple makes). The only question in my mind is, does Apple make more net profit from that 30% of Spotify revenue (for just hosting) or does it make more with Apple Music (where it has to code, test, support, advertise, host and pay labels/artists)?

The other question is what business it is of yours? You might be curious, and that's fine, but Apple is free to run its business as it wants, within limits that I don't see have been violated. Apple is under no obligation to give special rates to anyone, and the 30% cut has been there since day one.

The better analogy is that I own a mall. You rent space from me in the mall and you start, say, a music store. You sell music. You make good money selling music. I notice this and I decide that, hey, maybe I'll do that, too! So I take an empty store in my mall and start my own music store. My prices are cheaper than yours because I don't pay rent. I also might inadvertently turn up the air-conditioning in your store to make it less pleasurable to be in. And it might take awhile for me to fix the problem.

Spotify is nearly 8 years old. "In June 2016, Apple Music exceeded 15 million subscribers.", so in less than a year....

Spotify added 20 million users in the past 18 months, so nah, bro.

Also, remember that Apple already had all the login info and credit card numbers of all the iTunes users, and Apple Radio users. And, the largest base of handheld devices. Spotify did 20 million new users without that structural advantage.

Most of the articles on this dispute aren't getting too deep into what's going on, but here's some more information...

1. Spotify's current app allows users to subscribe through the app, using Apple's billing system, which gives Apple of cut. User's can also subscribe on the Spotify website, which bypasses Apple's cut.

2. Spotify is not allowed to advertise through the app that users can subscribe on a website outside the app. Spotify and Apple have had a dispute over this in the past, but Spotify chose to do as Apple asked, and removed all in-app subscription advertising targeted at iPhone users.

3. Spotify is now trying to submit a new version of their app that offers no in-app subscription method, period, and also has no advertising or instructions on how a user can get a subscription. Spotify is assuming that even with no in-app advertising or instructions, users will figure out that they can subscribe on the website.

4. Apple is claiming that this is still breaking the rules, and thus is rejecting the new version of the app. Spotify is claiming that this doesn't break the rules, and that Apple is just going to keep rejecting the new version of the app as long as they can so that users are stuck using the older version of the app that still has in-app purchases, from which Apple gets a cut.

That about sums up the information that I've gathered as well, but it doesn't make sense. Apple counsel was very clear that Spotify was breaking Apple's developer guidelines with their latest app. None of the actions you listed are breaking the guidelines. So, one of two things must be occurring:

1) Apple's lawyer is lying about the app breaking the rules.

2) There's something else in the app that hasn't been made public that is violating the rules.

I don't know about you, but I just can't fathom Apple's lawyers flat out lying about the app. Apple relies too much on developer goodwill to completely screw over a big developer so capriciously. I think there's more to this story than either side is willing to discuss, and it's my opinion that Spotify put one toe over the line in the sand that Apple has drawn, and Apple is threatening to cut it off.

Most of the articles on this dispute aren't getting too deep into what's going on, but here's some more information...

1. Spotify's current app allows users to subscribe through the app, using Apple's billing system, which gives Apple of cut. User's can also subscribe on the Spotify website, which bypasses Apple's cut.

2. Spotify is not allowed to advertise through the app that users can subscribe on a website outside the app. Spotify and Apple have had a dispute over this in the past, but Spotify chose to do as Apple asked, and removed all in-app subscription advertising targeted at iPhone users.

3. Spotify is now trying to submit a new version of their app that offers no in-app subscription method, period, and also has no advertising or instructions on how a user can get a subscription. Spotify is assuming that even with no in-app advertising or instructions, users will figure out that they can subscribe on the website.

4. Apple is claiming that this is still breaking the rules, and thus is rejecting the new version of the app. Spotify is claiming that this doesn't break the rules, and that Apple is just going to keep rejecting the new version of the app as long as they can so that users are stuck using the older version of the app that still has in-app purchases, from which Apple gets a cut.

It looks as though the "offers no in-app subscription method, period" is a bit misleading - according to Ars Technica [arstechnica.com], Spotify replaced the link with automatically sending you an email that you could use to sign up.

Read between the lines and the real message here is that Apple Music is kicking Spotify's ass.

At last count, Spotify has 30 million subscribers to Apple Music's 15 million; and that's despite Apple Music recently being made available on Android. The lines pretty clearly indicate that Spotify is beating the shit out of Apple Music, whether you read on, over, under, or between them.

Not the in-app fee. No sane person would use in-app purchases anyone. But change the clause, that the possiblity to pay outside the app may not be advertised. For ALL apps.

And the paragraph about the artists is quite ironic, because spotify can pay the artists less, if apple wants its slice of the cake. Hey, there would be like 3 USD more (33%) for the artists, if it wasn't for apple.

Apple doesn't have to pay their exorbitant percentage to somebody else. Therefore, even though their app is pedantically following the same rules, they're paying money to themselves, which means they are not, in any meaningful way, in the same position as third-party vendors. This is open-and-shut anticompetitive behavior by Apple. They're competing directly against other App Store vendors, and

Um.. That percentage is there to pay apple for the development and operation of the app store ecosystem. Apple is paying for that ecosystem every day in the form of developer salaries and massive infrastructure costs. To suggest that Apple gets to use the app store for free is one of the silliest things I have ever seen. It is like complaining about Microsoft not paying for Windows licenses. The only rational response to your argument is the equally silly comment of "Well why doesn't spotify just go make their own fucking massively popular smart phone and app store ecosystem?"

That percentage is there to pay apple for the development and operation of the app store ecosystem. Apple is paying for that ecosystem every day in the form of developer salaries and massive infrastructure costs.

Uh, no. Apple distributes free apps for free whether they offer in-app purchases or not. Apple gets rewarded for that by people buying hardware for which there are lots of apps available. Therefore, it is entirely nonsensical to suggest that because an app is tied to a subscription service, that Apple somehow deserves a cut of those services solely because they provided the ability to download an app that consumes those services.

And that argument fundamentally falls apart for another reason: The only reason Spotify is distributed by Apple is because Apple will not allow companies to distribute their own apps. Therefore those costs of distributing the app via the App Store are entirely Apple's decision, forced upon Spotify by Apple, not the other way around. Apple doesn't get to dictate that everyone must use their distribution mechanism, and then turn around and claim that because other folks used their distribution mechanism, suddenly they owe Apple a percentage of their income in perpetuity. I understand that Apple wants that, but it certainly isn't owed to them.

Frankly, this is a bit like Ford changing the gasoline filler connector and requiring every gas station to use their special filler, then demanding a percentage of the cost of every gallon of gas pumped through that nozzle. The fact that anybody puts up with it from Apple is, frankly, amazing, and there's a reason most of the major players have chosen to present an unfriendly login screen with no hints of how to get an account, rather than giving up a huge chunk of their revenue to a company that has done basically nothing to earn a huge chunk of their monthly revenue.

And most of the big companies that haven't been non-user-friendly about it (e.g. Facebook) have gotten permission from Apple to ignore that part of the App Store rules. Yeah, Facebook takes credit cards for Ad purchasing right in the app. No in-app purchases. This makes Apple's position even more legally tenuous, IMO, because they'll make exceptions for Facebook, but won't make exceptions for a company whose services are in direct competition with an Apple-branded service. Danger, Will Robinson!

To suggest that Apple gets to use the app store for free is one of the silliest things I have ever seen.

It is not free, but it is nearly free. The proportional costs for Apple Music's use of the store (payment system) are negligible. Realistically, because Apple aggregates billing for multiple services and gets preferential treatment for being such a huge vendor with such a low charge reversal rate, I'd imagine their cost for operating the billing system is less than 2% of the cost of the subscription. The difference between that number and 30% (or even 15%) represents a major competitive advantage.

Another day, another distorted car analogy.No, this is not like a car manufacturer charging for gas "passed through their nozzle".Apple's app store has become a victim of its own success, in a way, because it has made the process of app distribution on their hardware so effortless for the end user that it is now widely assumed to be trivial.

It has also vastly simplified the process for the developer as well. I know I'm going to get flak for saying this from developers with short memories, but it is true.

Apple's app store has become a victim of its own success, in a way, because it has made the process of app distribution on their hardware so effortless for the end user that it is now widely assumed to be trivial.

I assume nothing. I've done it on many occasions through many different mechanisms. Distributing applications is trivial. A mere web server can provide the same functionality that the App Store does. In fact, the App Store app basically just downloads the application package from a web server..

"Sticking your software on a webserver" is equivalent to Apple's app store, for a developer? Sure...

The answer is "it depends". For some random developer that nobody has ever heard, of, no it isn't. For somebody whose service is as well-known as Spotify,
with an advertising budget as big as Spotify, etc., yes, it is. For the most part, people don't discover Spotify on the iOS App Store. They go explicitly to the iOS App Store to download Spotify because somebody told them about it.

Your personal preference does not define the operation of the market. There have been many reasons for people to get "the same" content through different paid streaming services ever since the invention of the printing press.

To answer your question: The argument is over whether Spotify is allowed to inform users of the app that they can get a paid subscription by going to a website. This is against Apple's rules because it circumvents their automated systems for getting a cut of subscription fees.

Spotify can easily go the route that a number of other subscription-based developers have: They can make the app _require_ a login as a subscribed user, before it provides any functionality - including even informing the user where

You tell me, apple uses the saved 30% to pay its tech guys, but they need to get 30% from spotify. This calculation is missing, that apple doesn't do the tech for spotify and the spotify programmers want to be payed as well (i.e. from the 30%).

I'm pretty sure Apples App Store, pun intended, is run by a different company than Apple Inc. aka AAPL so good luck in court with your idiotic standpoint.

I'm pretty sure you're woefully uninformed on this.

To the best of my knowledge, Apple doesn't muck about with subsidiaries for all the different stuff they do. Selling computers, making operating systems, selling music downloads, selling apps, and selling music streaming subscriptions all fall within Apple Inc., whose stock ticker symbol is indeed AAPL.

all fall within Apple Inc No it does not, as e.g. many Laptops are crafted e.g. in Ireland by "Apple Ireland" etc. they are a sub company of Apple Inc. Same for plenty of other stuff. Otherwise the "tax avoidance schemes" we hear so often about would not be possible.

Did you even RTFA? Spotify is attempting to remove the ability to subscribe to their service from the app altogether and Apple is bitching about not being able to get a cut. Never mind that Facebook, Amazon and Netflix, to name a few, don't have to abide by this non-existent rule that if you offer subscriptions you must offer the ability to subscribe in the app.

If the rule were non-existing, nobody would have to abide by it. Since it does exist, they do, including Facebook, Amazon and Netflix. And despite what Spotyfly thinks, so do they. The fact that the app currently on the app store violates the rule isn't a reason they should be allowed to break it in the future, it should be a reason to have it removed. Period.

Horse shit. You clearly need a refresher-course in Anti-Competitive behavior. See here. [wikipedia.org]

Or for those of you are lazy:Section 1:
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal."
Section 2:
"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony [. . . ]"

That is the original text of the Sherman Act. The law that basically makes it illegal to monopolize a market by position. Apple do not have this position. Android is a larger OS by market share, which Apple can not influence. If Apple and Google decided to divvy up the music streaming business that would be a violation and an effective duopoly, but that is not the case here.

Apple does have costs associated with running the App store, and they have disproportionally levied fees on payments in order to subsidize their costs to provide the App Store services to free apps. Thank goodness they have, since most small developers can not afford:

1. A real quality control department. The review process keeps many bugs out of the App Store. Not all, but most.

2. Shady, shitty, data steeling apps.

3. Apps infested with spyware, malware, etc... etc...

4. The infrastructure to support updates, discovery, sales channels, a user-review solution... the list goes on....

If the benefits of the App Store didn't make it worth-while for app developers, the App Store would be pretty barren of apps. Its not. Apple do not have a monopoly on phones, phone OS's, and therefore can not have a monopoly on anything contained therein.

That is the original text of the Sherman Act. The law that basically makes it illegal to monopolize a market by position. Apple do not have this position. Android is a larger OS by market share, which Apple can not influence.

You're wrong on several counts, as I pointed out elsewhere. First, Apple has already been busted for antitrust violations, which means that yes, they do have a large enough position to be subject to antitrust limitations.

... eBook delivery, where they had to conspire with 5 other companies...

Yes, Apple conspired with five companies. However, those companies were their suppliers, not their competitors. It was not the size of those five companies that made it an antitrust violation, but rather the fact that Apple caused an illegal horizontal price fixing to occur. Notice that this was found to be illegal without any consideration of whether Apple is or is not a monopoly. In fact, you will notice that the word "monopoly"

Spotify should just move exclusivly to Android. Nothing shows the value of your convictions like slaming the door and walking away.

That would pretty much be suicide for Spotify. I'd imagine that most of their paid subscribers come from iOS. After all, iOS users tend to have more disposable income than Android users, and tend to spend considerably more on electronic goods and services.

Like it or not, Spotify has no choice but to have an iOS app available. They can choose to stop allowing in-app purchases,

Spotify should just move exclusivly to Android. Nothing shows the value of your convictions like slaming the door and walking away.

That would pretty much be suicide for Spotify. I'd imagine that most of their paid subscribers come from iOS. After all, iOS users tend to have more disposable income than Android users, and tend to spend considerably more on electronic goods and services.

Like it or not, Spotify has no choice but to have an iOS app available. They can choose to stop allowing in-app purchases, forcing users to figure out on their own how to buy subscriptions, but leaving the platform entirely would be a company-ending move.

If Spottyfly actually thought their users are too stupid to subscribe to their service, they probably would have a point. But what Spottyfly really is scared about is that using Apple's subscription service, it's far too easy to end an subscription you no longer want.

and you are of course the dictator of who cares about anything or anyone ? If you don't like it ignore it, if you really did not care you'd not waste the time to post Just because you don't know anyone who uses Spotify that of course means that no one does...You sir are a self involved douche bag...

Presumably we, and various anti-trust lawyers are glued to this spat and munching popcorn. I'm certainly going to purchase my next phone based on music streaming services./sarcasm

Or, you know, we don't care. It's a little weird for Apple to be playing in this space (as a HW company), it's a little weird the way Spotify is framing their argument...to the point that I question if their service has any actual value (it certainly has no profits). I question if such services can t

It feels like there's a struggle for a few strips of bacon, and two lions are going to dual to the death for those two strips of bacon.

The difference is for Apple, a music service can be a loss leader that fulfills the goal of building out the Apple "ecosystem". They don't have to make money from it for it to be a winner. That's why they will win in the end. They'll strike disadvantageous copyright deals just to drive the little guys out of town.

Apple has absolutely no problem with people getting Spotify subscriptions from anywhere and using them with the Spotify app. Apple has a problem with a link or similar in the App Store app that sends people to the web site or somewhere. If Spotify is going to sell subscriptions from the app, Apple wants its cut.

In other words, Apple is applying its rules to subscriptions sold from the Spotify app. Spotify users were always free to subscribe on the website or pay the extra for the convenience of an App

If you buy a product in the Amazon.com app, Apple has nothing to do with it, and doesn't get a cut. If you buy it in the iOS app, Apple is handling it and does get a cut. If the product is a subscription or license or something, once you bought it somewhere you can use it with the iOS app, and Apple's fine with it.

My understanding is this:1.Spotify currently offers subscriptions to their service via in-app purchase (where Apple gets a cut)2.Spotify tried to push an update that dropped the in-app purchase and added a "go here to buy a Spotify subscription" link (which violates the rules put in place by Apple)3.Spotify now wants to push an update that drops the in-app purchase but doesn't include the "go here to subscribe" link at all and Apple refuses to allow that new update.